Chennai Court January 1916 Judgments
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. R.G. Orr and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.986
1. Reading Section 204 of the Estates Land Act, Section 3, Sub-section (sic) the General Clauses Act, Regulation VII of 1828 and Madras Act VII of 1914 together, we have no doubt the Deputy Collector had jurisdiction in this case to make the grant of the certificate required by Section 186 of the Estates Land Act to support an application to the District Judge for compulsory sale of land by the ryot to the landholder.2. We agree with Napier, J., that the affidavit filed in support of the contention that the District Judge refused to receive evidence tendered on the question of the reasonableness and sufficiency of the purpose of the acquisition, cannot be accepted as a reliable one. It, therefore, becomes unnecessary for us to give a final opinion on the difficult question whether, if evidence had been so tendered, the Court was bound to have taken that evidence on the point. [See Goghun Mollah v. Rameshur Narain Mahta 18 C.k 271 where the learned Chief Justice differed from the two ot...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasami Naidu Vs. Ethirajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.1
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The first finding of the learned District Judge is that the two persons who granted the earlier lease to the plaintiff were in fact the dharmakartas of the temple and the 2nd defendant had no right to grant the subsequent lease relied on by the defendants. That finding is conclusive.2. It is next argued that the document relied on by the plaintiff is not a lease at all but a license; and the learned Judge has found that the lease is terminable at the option of the lessor. It is a mistake. The lease is terminable only at the option of the lessee, the plaintiff, and enures to her benefit so long as she is able and willing to perform the services for which she was given the lease.3. The last ground taken is that the defendant, having in good faith spent money in building a house on the suit site, ought not to be ejected except on terms of the 1st defendant being paid compensation. How far the Indian Law has gone on this matter, it is not necessary to decide. At any ra...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Raman Chetty Vs. Chinna Vellayan Chetti Alias Chinna Karuppan Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.508; (1916)30MLJ369
Oldfield, J.1. The Lower Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs contention based directly on his position as surety. It has, however, been relied on here, and therefore 1 deal with it before taking up the argument baaed on the negotiable character of Ex. A, on which the Lower Appellate Court decided in his favour.2. The Lower Appellate Court has adopted its findings of fact on this part of the case from the judgment of the Court of First Instance unreservedly. They are that plaintiff bound himself to pay part of his relative's debt to Yegappa Chetty, that in order to do so he sent the suit hundi, Ex. A, for delivery to Yegappa by plaintiff, and that the latter created defendant's original liability by delivering it and, the distinctive feature in the case, made himself surety for its discharge by endorsing that fact cm it. This entails not only that defendant did not know of plaintiff's entering and did not ask him to enter into this contract of guarantee, but also that, if the considerat...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Turimella Kurmanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.819
ORDER1. The four accused persons in this case were tried upon charges under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. They were tried by a Jury and the Jury having returned a verdict of not guilty, the learned Sessions Judge disagreed with that verdict and has referred the case to us under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused have not appeared before us, but we have considered the evidence and there can be no question but that upon the evidence the accused were guilty at least of an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of prosecution 1st witness shows that he had bolted the doors of his house on the night in question and he was inside the room sleeping when apparently a thief or thieves entered the house by opening one of the doors from outside by making a hole in the door undoing the bolt and they removed a cavidi box and 4 bell-metal cups which were in that box. The box wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnambala Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. Muthu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.52; (1916)30MLJ619
1. This is a suit brought by two out of five trustees of a temple to recover rent for three faslis, 1316, 1317 and 1318, and the first question is as to whether the suit was properly instituted as the Subordinate Judge has held. As to that, it is objected, in the first place, that the 1st plaintiff had been dismissed by the Kumbakonam Temple Committee from his office of trustee before the institution of the suit. It does not appear from the exhibits in the case that he has ever been finally dismissed by the Committee (See Exhibit I of the 11th February 1912 and Exhibit C of the 5th January 1913, from which it appears that the question of his dismissal was still to be settled in circulation). Apart from this, it is not suggested that he had ever been called upon to answer the charges in respect of which it was proposed to dismiss him, and, therefore, even if they had so purported to dismiss him, such an abuse of the rules Of natural justice, it is well settled, would invalidate the dism...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramabadra Naidu and Vs. Sir S. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.608
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals preferred against the order of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Madura, who amended Rule 24 of the scheme framed for the Rameswaram Devasthanam in Original Suit No. 23 of 1910 on the application of the Dharma Rakshana Sabha put in with the previous sanction of the Advocate-General, the application being I.A. No. 176 of 1914. In making the alteration the learned Subordinate Judge passed certain remarks against the three members of the Temple Committee in connection with their conduct in trying to purchase the Thevaram Zemindari from the Devasthanam funds. The appellant in one of these two appeals (Appeal against Order No. 205 of 1914) is one of the three Committee Members, Mr. Ramabhadra Naidu. The appellant in Appeal against Order No. 206 of 1914 is Mr. A.L.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar, another member. Though some of the grounds in the appeal memoranda are directed against the alterations made in the scheme by the Subordinate Judge, those objection...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyasamy Pillai Vs. Gurusami Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.691
1. The point in this case is this. There was a retain Gurusami Naicken who was a member of a joint Hindu family. That man was carrying on a trade in which admittedly the joint family was concerned. In the Cause of the made, Gurusami Naicken executed a promissory note in favour of a certain Chockalinga Padayachi in February 1909. It is not disputed, as I have said, that that promissory note was in respect of a trade debt incurred in the family trade. By subsequent endorsements, the note came to be held by a certain Ayyasami Pillai as holder and endorsee and he is the plaintiff in the present action.2. So far as Gurusami Naicken, the 1st defendant, is concerned, there is no difficulty, but the plaintiff has also joined and sought to get a judgment against the 2nd defendant, who is the elder brother of Gurusami Naicken, the 1st defendant. The story raised by the plaintiff is this. He says; 'This was a family trade concern and you, Gurusami Naicken, in executing this promissory note in res...
Tag this Judgment!Magunta Veeraraghava Reddi and anr. Vs. Magunta Kota Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1916
Reported in: (1916)31MLJ465
Abdur Rahim, J.1. There are two appeals before us from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Appeal No. 273 is preferred by the plaintiff and Appeal No. 279 by the defendants.2. There were three brothers Rama Reddi, Venku Reddi and Krishna Reddi forming a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff is the son of Venku Reddi. Rama Reddi left three sons Veeraraghava Reddi, Subba Reddi and Kothandarama Reddi. The defendant is the son of Kothandarama Reddi. Krishna Reddi when he died left a widow called Akkamma.3. The question which we have to decide is whether there was a partition among these three brothers in the life-time of Krishna Reddi himself. The Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the partition was after his death and we have no doubt that this is a correct conclusion. The oral evidence on the point is not of very much importance. The question rests upon the document Ex. A. which is a deed of relinquishment executed by the widow of Venku Reddi the mother of the plaintiff on ...
Tag this Judgment!Kapini Goundan and ors. Vs. Sarangapani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.744
1. We must accept the finding of the lower Appellate Court as to the genuineness of the Will, Exhibit I, and we agree in its construction of the gift-deed, Exhibit II, as being in favour of the two persons Arunachella and Balammal, and not, as appellant contends, for the sole benefit of Balaiumal.2. These two persons would, however, take the gift as tenants-in-common; and not as joint tenants with right of survivorship, Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ram Chandra Butt 23 I.A. 37.3. It follows that, as regards Arunacbella's moiety of the property, the title of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 is established and the suit must fail.4. The case of the other moiety which belonged to Balammal is more doubtful. It is admitted before us that on her death it would descend in accordance with the rules governing devolution of stridhanam property to her son, 1st defendant; but respondents contend that it passed from him by deed of gift, Exhibit C, to defendants Nos. 2 to 5, and is, therefore, not liable under the de...
Tag this Judgment!Magunta Veeraraghava Reddi and anr. Vs. Magunta Veeraraghava Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.532
Abdur Rahim, J.1. There are two appeals before us from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Appeal No. 273 is preferred by the plaintiff and Appeal No. 279 by the defendants.2. There were three brothers, Rama Reddi, Venku Reddi and Krishna Reddi, forming a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff is the son of Venku Reddi. Rama Reddi left three sons, Veeraraghava Reddi, Subba Reddi and Kothandarama Reddi. The defendant is the son of Kothandarama Reddi. Krishna Reddi when he died left a widow called Akkamma.3. The question which we have to decide is whether there was a partition among these three brothers in the lifetime of Krishna Reddi himself. The Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the partition was after his death and we have no doubt that this is a correct conclusion. The oral evidence on the point is not of very much importance. The question rests upon the document Exhibit A, which is a deed of relinquishment executed by the widow of Venku Reddi, the mother of the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »